To Antibullshitman on Utilitarianism

Didn't get around to the second point I had promised to discuss. I'll make another video soon.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• antibullshitman
• donotgod
• inmendham
• utilitarianism

[Ramiiam]

@Juju3322

Little-U, Big-U...that was the distinction I was making in my video between the kind of practical, utilitarian decisions we make in our everyday lives and Utilitarianism as a philosophical position.

[Juju3322]

@Ramiiam Sorry I really dont get ur point, little U and capital U Utilitarianism?? I know i misspelled the word, but whats ur point.

Modern Austrian Utalitarianism doesnt want to maximize anything. Because you can not calculate utility. What you can do, is provide a government frame which allows everyone to live their own lifes regarding to what makes them happy.

[Ramiiam]

@Ramiiam

But utility cannot simply be translated as lust, love, physical satisfaction, mental satisfaction, or any of those other things we recognize as human values, because rational people demonstrably sacrifice those things on occasion. So what is this thing they are maximizing?

[Ramiiam]

@Ramiiam

I haven't read Menger; maybe you can summarize how he goes about defining utility formally? I remember being frustrated by the empty and apparently meaningless concept of utility as an economics student. Neoclassical economics holds that people act to maximize utility.

[Ramiiam]

@Juju3322

I guess I would say that without the possibility of intersubjective calculation, utilitarianism is pointless. At least Capital-U Utilitarianism; Little-u utilitarianism doesn't require such intersubjective calculation, or least recognizes them for what they are: the projection of our own intuitions onto other beings (as in my cat story).

[Juju3322]

@Juju3322 had a material definition of utility like lust or pleasure. Utility since Menger is defined in a formal sense. The great advancement in thinking is that you cant do intersubjective calculation. This makes ur organ transplantation idea invalid. Modern (austrian) utilitarianism shows that there is no scientific ground on which such a calculation can be done. So if you take these two points into account utilitarianism becomes much stronger I guess. What do u think?

[Juju3322]

@Ramiiam

I guess I was not quite clear. If you dont stick strictly to the idea of property as a government (property = individual rights) the decision of the state become arbitrary. Since the state doesnt act but politicians, policeman and officials, that would mean these ppl actions d become arbitrary and not law bound. The question is simple rule of law, or rule of men.

In addition I think that Mises (and his predecessors) refined the meaning"utility". Bentham as well as Epikur

[Ramiiam]

@Juju3322

"show clearly that the most useful thing to society are individual rights..."

Except in cases where they aren't. Then what do we do? I see this a priori assertion that some preferred outcome is always in the general interest as an effort to sidestep the true implications of utilitarianism. If you take it seriously, you really have to put utility first and then follow that where it leads. Of course, I have no idea what "utility" is supposed to mean.

[Juju3322]

Dear Ramiiam, I am afraid you get Utilitarianism totally wrong at least when u come to public policy. Ur example would have as a necessary premises, that the government should choose when to adhere and when to abolish human rights. Buth utilitarians as Ludwig von Mises show clearly that the most useful thing to society are individual rights. And bentham as well as hume the earliest utilalitarians are also of this opinion :)

[jedimasterbooboo]

You're sexy in text! Yikes!